Why Do Seemingly Advanced Devotees Fall?

[Guest guest]

>But what happened to them? Even of those who are still left in the movement,

>I can respectfully say that they do not possess the charisma they displayed

>previously during Prabhupada's association.

 

Respectfully, Srila, perhaps you want to work a bit more on formulating

your hypotheses and disclosing your meta-theoretical assumptions.

 

For one thing, you seem to be judging current ISKCON gurus in their

personal level of spiritual realization (or lack thereof = falldown), not

so much in their institutional performance, right?

This is a tricky field, more so than doing research in the social sciences,

what to speak of the physical sciences.

 

Now, for your comparison -- ISKCON gurus' "charisma" before and after

Prabhupada's physical departure -- to stand on any firm ground, *all other

factors being equal*, you need at least to have comparable observations and

readings. In your comparison, you seem to present yourself as the only

observer and reader of the data you have gathered. Therefore, the validity

of your conclusion hinges upon you as the observer and the interpreter.

 

Could you please explain, then:

What are your standards for data gathering and data interpretation both

before Prabhupada's departure and right now? Have your own views,

interests, realizations, association, activities, etc. changed in any way

from one point in time to the next? How does your personal change affect

your comparative analysis?

 

What kind of relationship you had with those ISKCON gurus you are judging

both before Prabhupada's departure and right now? Did you have more

personal association with them at one point in time than at the other? How

did you gather data on those persons' personal realizations at one point in

time and at the next?

 

Do you think that something does not exist just because you cannot see it?

 

What factors and variables are you using to define "charisma" for the

purpose of your comparative analysis?

 

If you yourself may have changed in meaningful ways since Prabhupada's

departure, wouldn't it be possible that other people may have also changed

from one point in time to the next? What leads you to conclude that all

changes in personal spiritual realization (growing experiences) are

necessarily good in yourself but necessarily bad as they take place in

others?

 

In order for them to fully appreciate the value of your statements, you owe

your readers an explanation, it would appear. Isn't it?

[Guest guest]

>But what happened to them? Even of those who are still left in the movement,

>I can respectfully say that they do not possess the charisma they displayed

>previously during Prabhupada's association.

 

Respectfully, Srila, perhaps you want to work a bit more on formulating

your hypotheses and disclosing your meta-theoretical assumptions.

 

For one thing, you seem to be judging current ISKCON gurus in their

personal level of spiritual realization (or lack thereof = falldown), not

so much in their institutional performance, right?

This is a tricky field, more so than doing research in the social sciences,

what to speak of the physical sciences.

 

Now, for your comparison -- ISKCON gurus' "charisma" before and after

Prabhupada's physical departure -- to stand on any firm ground, *all other

factors being equal*, you need at least to have comparable observations and

readings. In your comparison, you seem to present yourself as the only

observer and reader of the data you have gathered. Therefore, the validity

of your conclusion hinges upon you as the observer and the interpreter.

 

Could you please explain, then:

What are your standards for data gathering and data interpretation both

before Prabhupada's departure and right now? Have your own views,

interests, realizations, association, activities, etc. changed in any way

from one point in time to the next? How does your personal change affect

your comparative analysis?

 

What kind of relationship you had with those ISKCON gurus you are judging

both before Prabhupada's departure and right now? Did you have more

personal association with them at one point in time than at the other? How

did you gather data on those persons' personal realizations at one point in

time and at the next?

 

Do you think that something does not exist just because you cannot see it?

 

What factors and variables are you using to define "charisma" for the

purpose of your comparative analysis?

 

If you yourself may have changed in meaningful ways since Prabhupada's

departure, wouldn't it be possible that other people may have also changed

from one point in time to the next? What leads you to conclude that all

changes in personal spiritual realization (growing experiences) are

necessarily good in yourself but necessarily bad as they take place in

others?

 

In order for them to fully appreciate the value of your statements, you owe

your readers an explanation, it would appear. Isn't it?

[Guest guest]

Dear Prabhus,

 

I was feeling uneasy after dispatching the "commentary" in my previous

posting. But since I was able to express in words for the first time

feelings that had been mulling around in my mind for years together, I will

not deny them either. I must confess that whatever I wrote were my own

subjective observations. If I have offended anyone in the process, I am

sorry for that.

 

In order for discussions to progress, we have to be frank with one other.

Sometimes that means making mistakes and being prepared to accept

correction. On the other side, it means giving someone the benefit of a

doubt, encouraging them to speak their piece and then allowing them the

right to clarify their position.

 

In this regard, I am thankful for the input I have received from several

devotees (Ajamila Prabhu, Kunti dd and Sraddha dd) who took the time to read

my post and reply. They have forced me to reexamine my conclusions and

adjust my thoughts, if for no other reason, then so people don't misread me

and I don't offend anyone unnecessarily.

 

Until our power of introspection is sufficiently developed, we need feedback

from other devotees to internalize the capacity to be more self-critical.

Even from a material point of view, we cannot act as conscientious and moral

beings without learning from others. The purpose of all these conferences

and discussions is to maintain and refine our Krsna consciousness.

 

I wrote:

> > But what happened to them? Even of those who are still left in the

>movement, I can respectfully say that they do not possess the charisma they

>displayed previously during Prabhupada's association. Why?

> > I believe Prabhupada offers the explanation above.

 

1) First of all, I regret juxtaposing my comment immediately after the

excerpt from Prabhupada in NOD. I should have let his words sink in, however

they might, then comment on them in a separate post.

 

2) Secondly, I now see in retrospect how my comment could have been misread

and how it indeed caused considerable sour notes. It was not very

flattering, to say the least.

 

Therefore I would like to reword it to a more objecitve statement:

 

"But what happened to them? Those who fell down from their positions or

left their services within ISKCON obviously lost the charisma (the power to

to inspire) and the inspiration to serve as they once had previously during

Prabhupada's association. Why?

 

The answer, I believe is given by Srila Prabhupada in the passage cited

above."

 

There. I have edited what would seem objectionable (though I continue to

maintain the suspicion that it could be true for many of those still *in*

ISKCON) and I have generously extended the subject pool to include myself.

 

Maybe I should rename this thread, "Why have *I* become fallen"?

 

What do think now, comrades?

 

Again please excuse me for my lack of faith in my senior godbrothers and

expressing myself too candidly.

 

We can't always belch out whatever is in our mind -- even if there is some

truth to it. Otherwise, our so-called truth-telling could be

counter-productive. Or worse, we may end up saying something foolish. The

"truth," however, often eludes a common consensus and a complete

comprehension. It is seen by those who have the eyes to see it.

 

Since I can't boast about my spectacular vision, I will simply suggest that

Prabhupada's words in NOD (pp. 131-132) may be eye-opening. Take them as you

will.

 

Your fallen servant,

 

Srila dasa

 

____

Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

[Guest guest]

> It might be that there is also something wrong on the side of the

> observer. A truly advanced and humble vaisnava sees that everybody is more

> Krishna conscious and advanced than him. It might be that the observer is

> not able to appreciate his own godbrothers

 

 

 

 

TOUCHE!!!!

[Guest guest]

Dear Srila,

How are you doing? You did not give me much of your association when I was

in Burckley. I will have taken pleasure talking with you. But I admit, I am

not so easy going. With the years, it is become worst. Anyway, I read your

posting and I found like giving you some hasty comments. I hope you will see

the good of it and spare me from being upset.

 

So read again your quote here:

 

> "The conclusion is that transcendental attachment is so powerful that

> -IF- (always stressed by me)

> such attachment is seen manifested even in some common man, by the

> association of a pure devotee -It CAN- bring one to the perfectional

> stage. -BUT- such attachment for Krsna cannot be invoked in a

> person without his being -SUFFICIENTLY- blessed by the association of pure

> devotees.

 

And this when the rare presence of a pure devotee is available! Building on

this, it is said that even an instant of such association -CAN- be enough.

I am sure you are alluding to NM in this posting. Since you are familiar

with his movement, you can therefore begin counting and naming the devotees

who got such blessings. It will be a good exercise of glorification. From

your past experience, this time it will be easier and beneficial. I believe

that glorification is one of the easiest way for BTG

 

> "Transcendental attachment, either shadow attachment or *para*, can be

> nullified by different degrees of offenses at the lotus feet of pure

> devotees. If the offense is very serious, then one's attachment becomes

> almost nil. And if the offense is not very serious, then one's attachment

> can become second class or third class.

 

It is not easy, isn't? Could you conclude about the chance to get something

serious about such association when possible?

 

> "A Second Chance"

 

I guess at the speed that we're going we may need a few more.

 

> "If, however, it is seen that a person has developed a high standard of

> devotion without having undergone even the regulative principles, it is to

> be understood that his status of devotional service was achieved in a

> former life.

 

Who is Srila Prabhupada taking as an example, do you know Prabhu? Why are

you giving this quote? Do you mean that Bhavananda, Kirtananda or even

Harikesh have developed a "high standard" in the past? Does a "high

standard" refer to saintliness? Then a definition of what is a saint could

be given so that we could clarify. I read sometimes your texts and I don't

feel comfortable because of the way you reason. Your logic is based on

"spiritual" postulates. You suppose that high standard, pure devotee, soul,

saint, etc. are universal definitions. There is no such simple formula. In

the material world every thing is relative. J.C. Mohammed, Buddha, Krsna,

were not accepted by everyone. So was Prabhupada. Will you say that all the

disciples of his Godbrothers should have followed Srila Prabhupada and

joined ISKCON when their guru did not recognize the Jagatguru? Yes in

theory, not in practice. You cannot make an institution with its rules and

dogmas and then expect every member to oversee them at any time. Therefore

to be effective, we define words according to the mission of the

institution. For these reasons, a saint from a Christian, a Muslim, or the

different sampradayas view will be defined differently.

 

> For some reason or other it had been temporarily stopped,

> most probably by an offense committed at the lotus feet of a devotee.

 

So if this was a high standard, -what we have seen in our movement-, imagine

what a Jimmy Swaggart will had been if he had become a devotee; a

saktyavesavatar!

 

>now with a good second chance, it has again begun to develop.The conclusion

> is that steady progress in devotional service can be attained only in the

> association of pure devotees." (end quote)

>

> All these devotees -- especially the leaders -[...] undoubtedly became >

graced with inconceivable *guru-krpa*, the causeless mercy of a pure >

devotee.

 

"Undoubtedly..." It does not cost us anything to believe it. We may even

polish our faith by being sentimental. Theoretically it is certainly more

rewarding than by being doubtful. We made that our philosophy. (That was the

main point in Occam's Razor.)

 

 

> Important Lessons

>

> As we mature in Krsna consciousness, we must learn to distinguish between

> *suddha-bhakti*, pure devotion in its true form (*svarupa-siddhi-bhakti*)

> from its likeness *bhakti-abhasa* -- either as shadow attachment

> (*aropa-siddhi-bhakti*) or transcendental imitative attachment

> (*sanga-siddhi-bhakti*), always being careful to avoid offenses at the

> lotus feet of pure devotees.

 

Once just for the pleasure of a discussion, I asked a devotee: "I don't get

it? Is full knowledge not necessary to go back home?" The answer was: "I

thought it was love of Krsna that was necessary." (It prompts me to write an

exhaustive answer. I have to work a little bit more on it and I will send it

on an appropriate forum, one day...)

 

>

> "Staying in the fire," therefore means always seeking the association of

> truly advanced devotees, *suddha-bhaktas*. This is what Prabhupada

> recommends above in the "Nectar of Devotion," as throughout all of his

> books.

 

"Staying in the fire"? What is this definition now? You mean by this

expression a kind of heavy "purification"? Does this purification look like

the chance of success you described above? You are an old devotee, you have

some experience of what you are talking about. Can you explain what you mean

by purification? You saw it in action, as you wrote it. So you can talk and

explain how it works? You certainly read the study of Dhira Govinda? That

could help you. I am very eager to see the result "alive" of such

purification. You remember the analogy of the glass of water and the ink?

Prabhupada gave that example. So you can meditate and illumine me :-).

I am saying that because in one hand you don't see much purification in

ISKCON but you are talking like if it was a reality that is existing

somewhere else. Well, that's why I say I feel inconfortable about your

writing; I have hard time to follow you.

 

> "Staying in the fire," therefore means always seeking the association of

> truly advanced devotees.

 

What is needed for the qualification, purity, knowledge or love? Or all of

them together? Some will resume it complexity by having recourse to: "it is

immotivated mercy"

Ys